On Sun, November 29, 2009 6:59 pm, fth...@telegraphics.com.au wrote: > That's why I'm interested in etch-m68k (glibc-2.3.6) buildds. I don't see > any role for glibc-2.5 in the process of updating to a tool chain based on > eglibc-2.10, binutils-2.19.51, gcc-4.4.1, linux-2.6.31. So I don't see any > need for the finline-gnu89 patch at all. Moreover, I worry that it may > actually cause problems. > > My only reservation is that the various eglibc/binutils/gcc/linux packages > have numerous build deps that may not be satisfied by the packages in > etch-m68k. That's the main sticking point I can see, but we may be able to > address this before the ABI stabilises.
The other problem with etch-m68k is that we can't make changes to that distribution any more. It sounds like we should bootstrap sid's toolchain (and friends) starting with etch-m68k. Are we going to end up recompiling the archive for TLS any way? -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <step...@marenka.net> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
